DAMASCUS, (SANA)- Syria strongly rejects the selectiveness adopted while drafting the resolution which was endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Friday, saying such resolutions are continuation of attempts to sabotage efforts seeking political settlement for the crisis, said an official source at the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry on Saturday.
"Once again the UNHRC gets carried along by a wide misleading campaign led by countries supporting terrorism in Syria to provide a political cover for the crimes committed by the armed terrorist groups," the source added.
See also: Syrian People's Assembly Speaker: Time for international community to listen to the truth, not mainstream media lies of 24 Mar 2013, Murder of 42 in mosque bombing a continuation of the war against the Syrian people of 22 Mar 2013, Censorship Alert of 26 Mar 2013.
It lashed out at those countries for submitting "unilateral and politicized resolutions that seek to place responsibility on the Syrian government for the ongoing events based on fallacies and false claims."
The source also slammed those countries' ignoring of the crimes perpetrated by the armed terrorist groups on which the Syrian government has presented tens of proofs to the UN Commission on Human Rights.
"This kind of resolutions, which became a tool used to target countries and interfere in their internal affairs, are continuation of the attempts of the countries involved in backing terrorism in Syria, prolonging violence and bringing foreign military intervention and sabotaging the efforts seeking a political settlement for the crisis through a Syrian-led national dialogue among the Syrians," said the official source.
"Syria completely rejects this resolution as it ignores the immoral role played by the countries supporting terrorism in Syria," the source stressed, noting that terrorists are being funded, trained, armed and dispatched from over 28 countries to carry out terrorist crimes in Syria, the latest was the bombing in al-Iman Mosque in Damascus on March 21.
The source highlighted that these crimes are being perpetrated by al-Qaeda-linked groups that are guided by fatwas that approve the shedding of the blood of innocents and obscurantist thinking seeking Syria's destruction and sabotaging co-existence among its people.
The source stressed that "such biased, non-objective and unbalanced resolutions" consolidate the double standards policy practiced by some countries that claim to defend human rights while at the same time they ignore the outrageous record of human rights in the countries sponsoring this resolution.
H. Said
#CensorshipAlert" id="CensorshipAlert">Censorship Alert
Editorial comment: The appendix originally posted here has been adapted to become the article Censorship Alert of 26 March 2013.
Comments
James Sinnamon
Mon, 2013-03-25 02:35
Permalink
Less concern about war against Syria now than Iraq war of 2003?
This was #comment-197660">posted to a discussion about the Iraq war of 20003 on John Quiggan's web site.
So, can anyone explain to me how NATO's Syrian "regime-change" in Libya in 2011 and its ongoing "regime-change" proxy war against Syria, which some estimate has cost 70,000 lives, differ from its illegal wars against Iraq in 2003 and 1991?
Can anyone explain why we should be less concerned about a war, which is raging now in 2013 and which we stand some chance of stopping, than a war, which we failed to stop, ten years ago?
Geoffrey Taylor
Mon, 2013-03-25 17:30
Permalink
Online forum: How to stop the Syrian 'civil' war?
The following is a response to #comment-197676">questions put to me in a debate on the Iraq War of 2003 on johnquiggin.com. This post was deleted on 25 March 2013. Another copy of this post is to be found on candobetter here.
J-D (@ #comment-197676">#41), Ken_L (@ #comment-197705">#42)
Thank you both for your interest. My apologies, on my part, for my slow response. I was intending to write a sizeable article to publish on my web-site (candobetter -dot- net -slash- syria) in response to your questions. Please consider the response below to be only interim:
Whilst it could seem hyperbolic to liken the crimes, committed the New World Order against Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and now Syria, with those of the Third Reich, given that the death toll of 3.3 million, so far killed since 1990 in Iraq alone, is barely an order of magnitude less than that caused by Nazi Germany and its allies in the Second World War, this likening is not unreasonable.
Given that the rulers of the New World Order have, in their hands, vastly more terrible and sophisticated weapons of war than those possessed by Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire, it is not hard to envision the death toll greatly surpassing the terrible toll of 60 million deaths in the Second World War should they triumph against Syria.
So, the whole civilised[1] world has a vital stake in the Syrian Army defeating the so-called "Free Syrian Army" and its New World Order controllers in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, the Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Israel, etc.
Given the effective abolition of the rights guaranteed in the US constitution by President Barack Obama, it will only be a matter of time before democratic rights, free speech, parliamentary democracy are abolished in Western Nations, should the Syrian people be defeated.
J-D #comment-197676">wrote:
J-D, I was simply pointing out that the history of which Professor Quiggin has written has been repeated in Libya and now threatens to be repeated in Syria and Iran. Surely, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, we need to consider whether that illegal invasion was a once-only occurrence or whether it was only one in a pattern of events which is now being repeated. If the latter, in the case of Syria, is true, then we should surely be interested in applying the terrible lessons of the Iraq war so as to prevent their repetition in Syria.
Ken_L #comment-197705">wrote:
Ken_L, The civil war in Syria could be ended simply if the U.S., Israel, etc., accepted the principle that any people have a right to national self-determination. It is obvious that President Bashar al-Assad and his government enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of Syrians. Those, who have waged the terrorist war against the Syrian government, comprise, at most, a small minority of Syrians. The vast majority of the FSA is comprised of sectarian Islamist extremists from countries like Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, mercenaries, the U.S. SAS, the U.K. SAS, the French Special Forces, the C.I.A., Mossad, etc.
Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel should cease giving these killers sanctuary and passage into and out of Syria.
An unprovoked attack on the armed forces of Syria or on the armed forces of any sovereign country is a crime and, even more so, the murder of unarmed civilians. Supplying weapons to those killers by the U.S. and its allies is complicity in that crime and should cease. Were that to happen, the war in Syria would be finished in days.
Early last year, the Syrian government received overwhelming support (and, I might add, far more than U.S. politicians typically get in national elections with barely 50% of the population in participating in most) from its people in a referendum proposing constitutional reform. Part of the reform was to remove from the Syrian constitution, any privilege give to the Ba'ath Socialist Party. President Assad and every member of the Syrian Parliament must now stand for re-election. Any one of them will be voted out were they not to enjoy popular support.
Were there ever to be free elections in Syria, which cannot possibly be held in the middle of the war now raging, there can be little doubt that President Assad would win overwhelmingly and that the FSA would get a miniscule vote.
The war and killing in Syria only continue because the rulers of the U.S. and their allies wish it to continue.
Footnote[s]
[1] I don't mean 'civilised' in the sense of the European colonialists claims of bringing 'civilisation' to the 'backward' people of the Third World in previous centuries.
admin
Mon, 2013-03-25 18:03
Permalink
Syrian rebel coalition crumbling: President resigns
From antiwar.com. Comment: Let's hope that Jason Ditz is right. However, even if the terrorists within Syria are crumbling under the blows of the Syrian Army, there is a vast reservoir of people to be used against Syria in the Middle East and Central Asia and amongst the regular and clandestine armed forces of the West. The only way to permanently end the war is for people in the countries whose governments are supporting the terrorists, to hold their governments to account. - GT
Syria’s National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces (CORF) has repeatedly claimed to be on the brink of unifying the rebel movement in a way that would facilitate more international aid. This weekend though, it looks like the CORF is on the brink of collapse.
The group’s president, Moaz al-Khatib has announced his resignation today, citing the lack of international support as a principle reason. Khatib had only held the position for a few months, and was controversial in being one of the few rebel figures who gave lip-service to a negotiated settlement, something which riled others in the CORF.
Khatib's departure leaves Ghassan Hitto, who was named "prime minister in exile" last week, as the closest thing the group has to a leader. Yet his position is enormously weak, and that weakness stretches beyond him being just a few months removed from being a middle manager for a small company in Dallas.
Gen. Salim Idris, the head of CORF’s military branch, has announced that he will not recognize Hitto as prime minister, and says the Free Syrian Army (FSA) won’t endorse Hitto unless he gets more support.
Though Hitto got a solid majority of the votes cast last week, he had the bare minimum of votes needed, with 15 of the 63 active members refusing to vote for anyone at all. There is concern that the lack of unity on Hitto would make him a weak leader, and this is doubly so without the FSA’s imprimatur.
Sheila Newman
Mon, 2013-03-25 22:14
Permalink
You can't be friends of Saudi Arabia AND friends of democracy
I see that this article posted by Geoffrey comes from a press release from the Syrian Foreign Ministry in Damascus. For those unfamiliar with a non-Western alliance interpretation of events in the Middle East, it might be helpful to clarify that last comment,
The comment undoubtedly refers to the United States, Britain and France as countries claiming to defend human rights whilst at the same time ignoring the outrageous record of human rights of Saudi Arabia, which forms part of that alliance.
It is indeed amazing that the US, Britain and France can stand, as it were, shoulder to shoulder with Saudi Arabia and speak of human rights. http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-saudi-arabia
Many people also feel that the United States, with its huge numbers of people in prison, of people below the poverty line and without secure shelter, of violent crime, prostitution and addiction, is also an abuser of human rights at home, as well as based on its record of illegal invasion of foreign countries.
Add comment